Please define 'swingy'

[Blackbrrd]

As far as planning and skill is concerned no matter how dangerous or swingy combat gets, good planning can always remain useful. In fact , the deadlier combat actually is the more planning matters.

Save-or-die trumps good planning...

In 3.5, at level 16 you are ambushed, at night from 400' range 32 level 6 wizards casting fireball. That is about 32*6d6 = 32*6*3.5 = 672 average damage, or 336 if you save for half. The encounter is EL16 so an appropriate challenge. The whole party will probably die in the surprise-round...

At lower levels it doesn't have to be this bad either. I had a party that was ambushed by a level 10 wizard in 3.0 who had cast haste before attacking. He fireballed the party twice in the first round and we already had 2 characters dying. He could have finished us of, but the DM saw where this was going and had him move on.

This is typical 3.x encounters that are totally broken because the system is so swingy. No amount of good planning keeps you away from ALL ambushes, and these ones are really bad. Planning can help but it isn't the solution to a swingy system.

 

[avin]

400' range 32 level 6 wizards casting fireball

HAHAHAHAH! How I never thought of that while DMing 3.5?

 

[FireLance]

If the odds are stacked toward survival and you survive then what have you proven, that you are average? Congrats average Joe, you survived when you should have.

Well, the 3E and 4E paradigm is that the PCs should survive, but it's because they are exceptional. The average Joe Commoner would not have survived. It's related to the reason why people applaud a tightrope walker after he performs his act even though they expect him to do it successfully. It may be routine to him because of his skill, but an ordinary untrained person would find it difficult and would risk death or injury if he attempted the same.

Part of planning and skill involves knowing not only how best to engage the enemy but if such activity is a wise course under present circumstances in the first place.

This sort of skill is only useful if there is meaningful player choice. A DM dropping players into a meatgrinder gauntlet with few options other than fighting will severely limit the effect actual player skill has on the outcome of events. If this is the style of game being run then swingy/deadly combat will naturally result in a lot of dead PC's.

Ideally, of course, good planning and meaningful player choice ought to take place and be useful at the encounter level as well, so that even if the DM gives the players no choice with respect to whether or not to engage the monsters, good planning and good choices within the encounter will determine whether the odds of PC survival are good or not.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Save-or-die trumps good planning...

In 3.5, at level 16 you are ambushed, at night from 400' range 32 level 6 wizards casting fireball. That is about 32*6d6 = 32*6*3.5 = 672 average damage, or 336 if you save for half. The encounter is EL16 so an appropriate challenge. The whole party will probably die in the surprise-round...

At lower levels it doesn't have to be this bad either. I had a party that was ambushed by a level 10 wizard in 3.0 who had cast haste before attacking. He fireballed the party twice in the first round and we already had 2 characters dying. He could have finished us of, but the DM saw where this was going and had him move on.

This is typical 3.x encounters that are totally broken because the system is so swingy. No amount of good planning keeps you away from ALL ambushes, and these ones are really bad. Planning can help but it isn't the solution to a swingy system.

Encounter balance/ CR is newfangled crapola on a stick. If the DM is intent on getting the drop on a party and ambushing them with overwhelming deadly forces then the outcome should come as no suprise at all.

Why is encounter balance complete crap? As you so accurately pointed out the raw stats of the opposition were "appropriate" for he party. Circumstances and planning (or a lack thereof) are everything in these cases.

If the DM has a set agenda and is motivated to do willful harm to the party then neither planning nor any type of mechanics or game stats will help them.

Swing is irrelevant here. The DM just decided he wanted to pull down the party's trousers and thrash them.

 

[FireLance]

Encounter balance/ CR is newfangled crapola on a stick. If the DM is intent on getting the drop on a party and ambushing them with overwhelming deadly forces then the outcome should come as no suprise at all.

Why is encounter balance complete crap? As you so accurately pointed out the raw stats of the opposition were "appropriate" for he party. Circumstances and planning (or a lack thereof) are everything in these cases.

Well then, the pertinent question is: was 3.5E designed for balance? Since it obviously failed to achieve it...

 

[ExploderWizard]

Ideally, of course, good planning and meaningful player choice ought to take place and be useful at the encounter level as well, so that even if the DM gives the players no choice with respect to whether or not to engage the monsters, good planning and good choices within the encounter will determine whether the odds of PC survival are good or not.

Yes indeed and this should include all options including whether or not to remain engaged in the encounter or withdraw. Straight up fights that must end in victory or death should be rare in deadly combat systems for obvious reasons.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Well then, the pertinent question is: was 3.5E designed for balance? Since it obviously failed to achieve it...

I will go so far as to say that any rules system for a game in which the participants can do largely anything they can imagine that strives to achieve perfect mechanical balance has hopped aboard the failboat.

Games designed for imaginative play are designed for people, to be played and balanced by people.

Actually achieving that kind of balance would require limiting the scope of the game to an extent that it would no longer be limited only to the imagination of the players.

 

[Mathew_Freeman]

If you didn't see it, Mearls posted about swinginess on his blog, apparently inspired by this thread: The Keep on the Gaming Lands: Swinginess and Balance

I think this is pretty insightful w.r.t. the questions of prep vs. swing that were being discussed earlier:

But read the whole thing!

I was going to post that also, having read the article this morning.

I'm coming to the conclusion that 4e is not quite swingy enough for me, unfortunately. However, this is a matter for house-rules rather than edition change. I suspect that "half-hit points, +level damage" or similar will solve my concerns.

For the record, I define swingy as "rapid changes of opinion about who is going to win the current combat".

 

[Mark Chance]

Well then, the pertinent question is: was 3.5E designed for balance? Since it obviously failed to achieve it...

Going from an example of an obvious DM screwjob (32 level 6 wizards at 400 feet at night who all have prior knowledge of the PCs' route, line of sight to ground zero, can all target the same point, and the PCs are conveniently walking in fireball formation?) to "obviously failed to achieve" balance requires epic-level ranks in Jump to Conclusions.

 

[billd91]

Save-or-die trumps good planning...

In 3.5, at level 16 you are ambushed, at night from 400' range 32 level 6 wizards casting fireball. That is about 32*6d6 = 32*6*3.5 = 672 average damage, or 336 if you save for half. The encounter is EL16 so an appropriate challenge. The whole party will probably die in the surprise-round...

At lower levels it doesn't have to be this bad either. I had a party that was ambushed by a level 10 wizard in 3.0 who had cast haste before attacking. He fireballed the party twice in the first round and we already had 2 characters dying. He could have finished us of, but the DM saw where this was going and had him move on.

This is typical 3.x encounters that are totally broken because the system is so swingy. No amount of good planning keeps you away from ALL ambushes, and these ones are really bad. Planning can help but it isn't the solution to a swingy system.

There are a couple of problems with this argument. Fireball isn't a save-or-die spell. The CR system makes no claims to coming up with a balanced encounter with 32 creatures on one side. In fact, it says anything over a dozen would be hard to judge.

As ExploderWizard pointed out, in your first case, you've basically managed to state the case that a DM interested in screwing over the party is fully capable of coming up with the means of doing so. And the second case was dealt with by 3.5 nerfing the haste spell to be closer to 1e/2e levels.